¹ I shall generally use the word ‘Mass’ in this article for simplicity's sake, even though properly speaking this term is used only of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the Latin church.

² Bona, Giovanni, Tractatus Asceticus de Sacrificio Missae (Waterford: Johannes Bull [sic!], 1810), ch. 1, section 4, pp. 23-25.Google Scholar

³ St Bellarmine, Robert, De Controversiis, ‘De Sacramento Eucharistiae’, bk. 6, c. 6, in Roberti Bellarmini Omnia Opera (Paris: Vivès, 1873)Google Scholar, vol. 4, p. 377. According to Jungmann, this prayer for the offering of the chalice is found already in a sacramentary of the 9^th or 10^th century, but without the words pro totius mundi salute; Jungmann, Joseph, The Mass of the Roman rite: its origins and development vol. 2, tr. Brunner, Francis (Indiana: Christian Classics, 2012), p. 57 n. 79Google Scholar. The words are found in a 13^th century Ceremoniale Episcoporum. I leave aside the question of whether, or in what sense, the Mass is offered for those outside the Church, and hence whether ‘the whole world’ is to be understood as the ‘whole Christian world’; see St Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae (henceforth: STh) 3a 79, 7: ‘Whether this sacrament benefits others than those who receive it’.

⁴ Denzinger-Hünnermann 2630.

⁵ Liguori, St Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis (Rome, 1909)Google Scholar, bk. 6, tr.3 c. 3, n. 312, p. 291. See also Godefroy, L., ‘Fruits de la Messe’, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1907-51)Google Scholar.

⁶ Session 22, ch. 2; Denzinger-Hünnermann 1743. The decree is quoting Heb. 4:16.

⁷ They should however be distinguished from the increase in sanctifying grace produced by the worthy reception of holy communion.

⁸ Scotus himself referred to them as the ‘most general’ and the ‘middle’ fruit, distinguishing also a ‘most special fruit’, which is the benefit received by the celebrant of the Mass himself; Scotus, John Duns, God and Creatures: The Quodlibetal Questions, tr. Wolter, Allan and Alluntis, Felix (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar, q. 20, 4 and 34. For a fuller discussion of these three fruits, with a description of the confusing fluctuation of the terminology over time, see L. Godefroy, ‘Fruits de la Messe’, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique.

⁹ I hope however to defend this principle more fully in a future article. For an historical and speculative exposition of a contrary position, see two recent articles by Baldovin, John F. SJ: ‘Mass Intentions: The Historical Development of a Practice, Theological Studies, Volume 81 (4) 2020, pp. 870-921CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Mass Intentions: Twentieth Century Theology and Pastoral Reform’, Theological Studies, Volume 82 (1) 2021, pp. 8-28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The author bases himself on the earlier work of his confrère Edward Kilmartin, who in turn drew on Karl Rahner's 1951 work Die vielen Messen und das eine Opfer. See Kilmartin, Edward SJ, ‘The One Fruit or the Many Fruits of the Mass’, Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 21 (1966), pp. 37-69.Google Scholar

¹⁰ We find this language, for example, in Francisco Suarez; see De Sacramentis, disp. 79, Sect. 11-12 in Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1861), volume 21, p. 754 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ St Alphonsus refers to these as the two opinions about the efficacy of the Mass; Theologia Moralis (Malines: 1828), book 6, tract. 3, pp. 157-58.Google Scholar

¹² J. Baldovin, ‘Mass Intentions: Twentieth Century Theology and Pastoral Reform’, p. 11.

¹³ This is what is traditionally referred to as transcendental or virtual, as opposed to predicamental, quantity.

¹⁴ Apostolic Constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina, 1967, norm 5.

¹⁵ At the same period, a parallel discussion of the efficacy of the Mass is found among canonists, commenting on an ambiguous text attributed to St Jerome and inserted into the Decretum, which some took to ascribe what would come to be called ‘extensive infinity’ to the fruits of the Mass; see Edward Kilmartin SJ, ‘The One Fruit or the Many Fruits…’, pp. 42-46.

¹⁶ Ibid., 49-53. St Bonaventure's treatment of the subject is extremely brief. He writes simply ‘in cruce effusum est pretium in omnimoda plenitudine, sed in altari habet effectum determinatum’ (‘on the cross the price was poured out in fullness of every kind, but on the altar it has a determinate effect’); Commentaria in quattuor libros Sententiarum in Opera Omnia (Florence: Quaracchi, 1889), volume 4, p. 947Google Scholar. With Duns Scotus, the finitist position follows from his opinion that the Church and not Christ is the one directly offering the Mass; see E. Kilmartin, ‘The One Fruit or the Many Fruits…’, pp. 50-51.

¹⁷ St Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis, ‘De Sacramento Eucharistiae’, bk. 6, c. 4, p. 375: ‘Valor sacrificii Missae finitus est’.

¹⁸ Ibid. Although he does not explain what he means by ordo divinae providentiae, we may understand him to be saying that God fittingly manifests his power and wisdom by the harmonious multiplication of secondary causes.

¹⁹ This was also the position of Francisco Suarez: ‘It has some maximum limit’ (‘habebit aliquem terminum maximum’); De Sacramentis, disp. 79, sect. 11.5.

²⁰ Cf. ‘De celebratione Missae’, q. 2; Opuscula Thomae de Vio Caietani (Lyon: 1525), vol. 2, 3^rd treatise, pp. 146-50.

²¹ STh 3a 79, 5: ‘Quamvis […] haec oblatio ex sui quantitate sufficiat ad satisfaciendum pro omni poena, tamen fit satisfactoria illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus, secundum quantitatem suae devotionis, et non pro tota poena’. We may note that he uses the term quantitas twice; he sees no objection, therefore, to the ‘quantification of spiritual realities’.

²² STh 3a 79, 5 ad 3: “Hoc quod tollitur pars poenae et non tota per hoc sacramentum, non contingit ex defectu virtutis Christi, sed ex defectu devotionis humanae”.

²³ In STh 3a 79, 5.

²⁴ ‘De celebratione Missae’, q. 2; Opuscula Thomae de Vio Caietani (Lyon: 1525), vol. 2, 3^rd treatise, p. 148.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 149.

²⁶ Ibid., p. 147.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ He writes: ‘Those who ignorantly ask or demand that in return for their alms, the whole Mass be said for them, or for some departed soul, should be both rebuked and taught’; In 3a 79, 5. In 1665, Pope Alexander VII condemned among other ‘errors of the laxists’ the opinion that a priest may receive two stipends to say Mass for two donors, and acquit himself of his obligations by a single offering of the sacrifice; Denzinger-Hünnermann 2030.

²⁹ IV Sent. dist. 45, 2, 4 qc. 2. It is clear from the context that suffragia includes, though is not limited to, the offering of Mass.

³⁰ ‘Si autem consideretur valor suffragiorum inquantum sunt satisfactiones quaedam per intentionem facientis translatae in mortuos; tunc magis valet suffragium alicui quod pro eo singulariter fit, quam quod pro eo communiter fit, et multis aliis. Sic enim effectus suffragii dividitur ex divina iustitia inter eos pro quibus suffragia fiunt’.

³¹ IV Sent. 45, 2, 4 qc 3 ad 2.

³² Joao Poinsot/John of St Thomas does the same; see John of St Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, in tertiam partem, qq. 61-83 (Paris: Vivès, 1886), t. 9, p. 566 ffGoogle Scholar. The Carmelites of Salamanca also follow the position of Cajetan; see Collegii Salmanticensis Cursus Theologicus (Paris: Victor Palmé, 1882), vol 18, pp. 837-856.Google Scholar

³³ De Sacramentis, disp. 79, Sect. 11.2, 12.3.

³⁴ Liguori, St Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, (Malines: 1828), book 6, tract. 3, pp. 157-58.Google Scholar

³⁵ ‘The One Fruit or the Many Fruits…’, pp. 48-49.

³⁶ The Mass of the Roman rite: its origins and development, p. 77.

³⁷ ‘Mass Intentions: The Historical Development of a Practice’, p. 886. The author's remarks here are awry in various ways: he takes this passage from the Supplement to the Summa (q. 71, a. 12) rather than from the Scriptum, and attributes it to Reginald of Piperno rather than to Aquinas. Although Reginald apparently put material of his own into the Supplement, what is quoted by Baldovin is not of this kind. Finally, he overlooks St Thomas's statement in the following article (the following ‘quaestiuncula’, in the Scriptum) that ‘the effect of the suffrage is divided by divine justice between those for whom the suffrages are made’. On the other hand, the same author helpfully reminds us that devotio, in all these scholastic sources, does not refer to an emotion; he suggests ‘commitment’ as a possible alternative translation. J. Baldovin, ‘Mass Intentions: Twentieth Century Theology and Pastoral Reform’, p. 12 note 20. The use of the word perhaps derives from its place in the Roman canon, ‘quorum tibi fides cognita est, et nota devotio’ (‘of whose faith you are aware, and whose devotion is known’).

³⁸ For the sake of simplicity, I leave aside the question of whether the benefit received is also necessarily (‘ex opere operato’) a function of the devotion of those who offer (which would include at least the celebrating priest, the other faithful present, and those who arrange for the Mass to be said). Cajetan seems to have assumed that it was, whereas some later authors hold that this devotion can be directed either toward the special intention of the Mass or toward some other intention. See L. Godefroy, ‘Fruits de la Messe’. Again, for simplicity's sake, I focus on the comparative remission of temporal punishment rather than on the bestowal of other spiritual or even temporal benefits.

³⁹ Suarez remarks that there is nothing in the Scriptures or the Fathers to settle the question of whether the Mass is extensively limited or not, and hence that one must refer to the practice of the Church to decide it; De Sacramentis, disp. 79, Sect. 12.7. We may also offer ‘arguments of convenience’, as I do here.

⁴⁰ Cf. STh 2a 2ae 26, 6: ‘Since the principle of love is God and the person who loves, it must needs be that the affection of love increases in proportion to nearness to one or other of these principles’.

⁴¹ STh 3a 7, 12.